ML20205A501

FOIA Request for Records from 1960s & Early 1970s That Will Shed Light on Util Decision to Build Nuclear Power Plant & Location

ML20205A501
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/19/1988
From:	Mokrzycki M ASSOCIATED PRESS
To:	Robinson L NRC
Shared Package
ML20205A506	List: ML20205A501 ML20205A512
References
FOIA-88-443 NUDOCS 8810260006
Download: ML20205A501 (5)

Text

_ __ _ _-_

Ap um. FREEDOM 0F lflFORMAT10M ACT REQUEST (CIA ~ff-W.]

August 19, 1988 h Q / .)y.g Linda Robinson Chief, FOIA Branch Room p378 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Ms. Robinson:

As we discussed in our telephone conversation of July 29, I am making this request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552).

I request a copy of records from the 1960s and early 1970n that would shed light on the decision by public Service Company of New Hampshire (pSNH) to build a nuclear plant, and

" where to put the project that became Seabrook Station.

pSNH has given me access to some of its files, eo I can be fairly specific in some parts of this regiest. In other areas, however, I don't know exactly what transpired and what records the then-Atomic Energy Commission may have kept, so I can't be as specific. To try to narrow the scope as much as possible, I have outlined on the enclosed Attachment A what I know so far about Seabrook's early history and, generally, what I'd like to find out. For your information, I have also enclosed, as Attachment B, a copy of my request for documents through the NRC's public Document Room.

As you know, the FOIA provides that even if some requested material is properly exempt from mandatory disclosure, all segregable portions must be released. (5 USC 552(b)).

I If all material covered by this request is withheld, please inform me of the specific exemptions that are being claimed.

If the requested material is released with deletions, I ask that each deletion be marked to indicate the exemptions being i claimed to authorize each particular withholding. l In addition, I ask that your agency exercise its discretion to l release inf ormation that may be exempt -

either technically l under the FOIA, or because I may not have executed : erf ectly this complicated request - but where withholding would serve no important public interest. l 8010260006 000919 l PDR FOIA MOKRIYC00-443 PDR 1 Northern New Eng'and Bureau. The Monitor Budding PO B31296 Concord NH 03301 603 224 3327 NH 800 852 3433 NE B00 258 3484

I August 19, 1988 ,

Linda Robinson ,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission page two As you know, the FOIA provides that agencies may reduce or waive fees if it would be "in the public interest because furnishing the inf ormation can be considered as primarily benefitting the public." (5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(4)(a)). i I believe release of this material would be of benefit to the public because Seabrook is an important issue to, among others, investors nationwide who poured more than $5 billion into the project; electricity ratepayers throughout New England; and, arguably, anyone concerned about how this nation goes about meeting its energy needs. Insight on the project's inception and development would be valuable inf ormation in the ongoing debate over the project.

I therefore ask that you waive any fees relating to this request. If you rule otherwise and if the fees will total more than $25, I understand from our telephone conversation that you will inform me of the estimated charges before you fill my request.

Please telephone me at 603-224-3327 if you have any questions abcut this request. I would be happy to discuss ways in which this request could be clarified or somewhat redesigned to reflect the agency's filing system and speed the sea:ch f or records.

As provided under the FOI A, I expect a reply within 10 working days.

Sincerely, fN 4(' 6 f

Michael Hokrzycki Newsman Encl., 2 mjm/1ha l

w- -- -. - --,,- , . . , , _ . - , , , . , - - - --

i, ATTACHMENT A SEABROOK HISTORY FOIA REQUEST DETAILS For the purpose of this request, by "records" I mean memoranda or other correspondence, as well as transcripts, minutes, notes, telephone log entries or other in f orma t ion regarding meetings or other communications: between Public Service Company of New Hampshire and Atomic Energy Commission staff; within the AEC; between AEC of ficials and of ficials in other federal agencies or departments; and between AEC officials and officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and-or the state of New Hampshire.

As I explain below, I exclude from my request records available in the NRC's Public Document Room.

This is generally what I know about Seabrook's history and the sort of records I'm interested in:

PSNH EXPLORES THE NUCLEAR OPTION

! I'have read that PSNH considered building its own atomic plant as early as 1962, and utility records show a consultant studied the option as early as 1964.

PSNH files indicate the utility first discussed with AEC staff its plans for a nuclear project in Newington, N.H., at a meeting on June 6, 1967 in Bethesda, Md. PSNH filed its construction-permit application for that project on April 9, i 1969 - Docket 50-340.

I request any records indicating when PSNH first approached the AEC staff to express interest in building a nuclear plant, and any other records that may exist on very early planning ,

for the proposed project, i.e., before the utility began its  !

meetings with AEC staf f in June 1967.  ;

Concerning this and my further requests below, I am especially interested in any information on consideration that may have been given to the financial qualifications of PSNH

] and other utilities then thinking of participating in the proposed project.

I also am especially interested in recotos that would give insight into the thinking of PSNH and AEC staff on where to a

site the plant. Particula:ly helpful would be any information on consideration given to population densities - especially in the summer months at Hampton and Seabrook beaches, less than  !

two miles from the Seabrook site that PJNH eventually chose -

as well as to environmental issues and political factors that l

may have been seen as possibly having an impact on whether the site could win approval for a construction permit and, ultimately, reactor operation.

{

4 SEABROOK HISTORY FOI REQUEST DETAILS page two I do not now request records on technical specifics of reactor ,

design and operation, although I would appreciate if you could alert me to the existence of such records.  ;

PSNH FIRST PROPOSES ITS NUCLEAR PROJECT PSNH announced on May 20, 1968, that it planned to build a single 860-megawatt atomic power reactor in Newington, N.H.,

with commercial operation scheduled for 1974. PSNH planned to own 50 percent of the project, with The United Illuminating ,

L Co. of Connecticut and other New England utilities owning the rest.

PSNH and the AEC staf f held a second meeting Aug. 28, 1968, a f ter the AEC made a ruling in the Three Mile Island construction permit case regarding engineered safeguards to compensate for the proximity of an airport. The ruling had implications for the Newington site, which was near Pease Air Force Base.

A third PSNH-AEC staf f meeting was held on Nov. 26, 1968, to discuss the company's decision to change sites and to review the Seabrook site.

As I mentioned above, PSNH filed its construction permit application for Seabrook on April 9, 1969.

To my knowledge, there were several PSNH-AEC staff meetings in August and September 1969, mainly to discuss technical specifications of the proposed nuclear project, although

company records indicate there was some discussion of ,

population issues as well.

Also, company records reflect a meeting on Aug. 6, 1969, r between PSN!! Vice President Eliot Priest and Harold Price, then the AEC's director of regulation, at which Priest i discussed the utility's decision to delay Seabrook's planned l 1 commercial-operation date from October 1974 to July 1975.

Citing lack of adequate ownership participation and the l

absence of a power pooling agreement among New England l utilities, PSNH inf ormed the AEC in a letter dated Nov. 13,

1969, that it was deferring its nuclear project.

t l

f

t SEABROOK HISTORY FOI REQUEST DETAILS page three Dona McColloch in the NRC's Public Document Room has sent me a copy of the accession list for Docket 50-340, and I am trying to obtain some documents listed there through her. My request under FOI A is solely f or records that may be in the agency's files but not in the PDR. (See attachment B, a copy of my request to Ms. McColloch. Please note that it is not clear from the accession list whether the documents I have requested from it actually are in the PDR. I will cont 1ct you if I am unable to obtain some of those records through Ms. McColloch.)

Witn that limitation and within the scope defined above, I hereby request any records on the AEC-PSNH meetings and any ,

other records the NRC has on the Newington-Seabrook project from June 1967 until the project was de'arred in November 1969.

PSNH REVIVES ITS NUCLEAR PROJECT  !

On Feb. 1, 1972, PSNH announced it was reviving the Seabrook project. This time PSNH - which again planned to own 50 percent of the project - proposed twin 1,150-megawatt reactors, the first planned for commercial operttion in 1979, the second in 1981. ,

1 PSNH materials f rom that time indicate the company had  ;

explored reviving and scaling up the project at least as early as 1971. ,

Seabrook applied f or an AEC construction permit f or both units i on March 30, 1973. After requesting and receiving additional '

i n f or ma t i on, the AEC staff accepted the application for docketing in July 1973 - docket numbers 50-443 (Unit 1) and 50-444 (Unit 2).

Within the scope and with the exceptions spelled out previously, I request any AEC records on planning for the revival of the Seabrook project -

i.e., records from between November 1969 and July 1973, when the new Seabrook dockets were opened. I include in this request any recor s not in the PDR on why the AEC staff asked PSNH for more in f orma tion before accepting the Seabrook application for docketing.

l

- .